Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.049816553 = product of:
  0.099633105 = sum of:
    0.099633105 = product of:
      0.19926621 = sum of:
        0.19926621 = weight(_text_:journals in 2636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.19926621 = score(doc=2636,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.77665615 = fieldWeight in 2636, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2636)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The frequency of non-informative titles of journal articles was assessed for two fields: library and information science and sociology. The percentage of non informative titles was 21% in the formaer and 15% in the latter. In both fields, the non-informative titles, were concentratein only a few journals. The non-informative titles in library science were derived mainly from non-research journals. IN sociology the reasons for non-informative titles may be more complex; some of these journals are highly cited. For the improvement of retrievaleffiency the adoption of a policy encouraging informative titles (as in journals of chemistry) is recommended.

0.02423105 = product of:
  0.0484621 = sum of:
    0.0484621 = product of:
      0.0969242 = sum of:
        0.0969242 = weight(_text_:22 in 262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0969242 = score(doc=262,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17893866 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 262, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=262)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

20.10.2000 12:22:23

0.017791625 = product of:
  0.03558325 = sum of:
    0.03558325 = product of:
      0.0711665 = sum of:
        0.0711665 = weight(_text_:journals in 1167) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0711665 = score(doc=1167,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.2773772 = fieldWeight in 1167, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1167)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This study systematically compares retrievals on 11 topics across five well-known data bases, with MEDLINE's subject indexing as a focus. Each topic was posed by a researcher in the medical behavioral sciences. Each was searches in MEDLINE, EXCERPTA MEDICA, and PSYCHINFO, which permit descriptor searches, and in SCISEARCH and SOCIAL SCISEARCH, which express topics through cited references. Searches on each topic were made with (1) descriptors, (2) cited references, and (3) natural language (a capabiblity common to all five data bases). The researchers who posed the topics judged the results. In every case, the set of records judged relevant was used to to calculate recall, precision, and novelty ratios. Overall, MEDLINE had the highest recall percentage (37%), followed by SSCI (31%). All searches resulted in high precision ratios; novelty ratios of data bases and searches varied widely. Differences in record format among data bases affected the success of the natural language retrievals. Some 445 documents judged relevant were not retrieved from MEDLINE using its descriptors; they were found in MEDLINE through natural language or in an alternative data base. An analysis was performed to examine possible faults in MEDLINE subject indexing as the reason for their nonretrieval. However, no patterns of indexing failure could be seen in those documents subsequently found in MEDLINE through known-item searches. Documents not found in MEDLINE primarily represent failures of coverage - articles were from nonindexed or selectively indexed journals

0.017307894 = product of:
  0.03461579 = sum of:
    0.03461579 = product of:
      0.06923158 = sum of:
        0.06923158 = weight(_text_:22 in 2417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06923158 = score(doc=2417,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17893866 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2417, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2417)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Pages

S.22-25

0.012115525 = product of:
  0.02423105 = sum of:
    0.02423105 = product of:
      0.0484621 = sum of:
        0.0484621 = weight(_text_:22 in 5001) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0484621 = score(doc=5001,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17893866 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5001, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5001)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

14. 3.1996 13:22:21